Koster v Norval (20609/14) [2015] ZASCA 185 (30 November 2015)

Koster v Norval (20609/14) [2015] ZASCA 185 (30 November 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that South African law does not require the seller in a contract of sale to be the owner of the thing sold. The seller's obligation is to deliver undisturbed possession and to warrant against eviction, not to transfer ownership. In this case, the respondent delivered possession of the game to the appellant, and there was no evidence of eviction or a claim by a person with better title. The appellant's defence based on alleged tacit or implied terms requiring transfer of ownership was rejected, as such terms are not implied by law and cannot be imported in contradiction of the express terms of the contract. The contract was complete and efficacious, and the...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 185
Parties
Appellant: Ralph Werner Köster; Respondent: Archibald Norval
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2015
Case Number
20609/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Majiedt, Pillay, Van der Merwe, Baartman
Legal Topics
Contract of Sale, Delivery of Possession, Warranty Against Eviction, Implied and Tacit Terms
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract of Sale Delivery of Possession Warranty Against Eviction Implied and Tacit Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Werner Köster

Appellant

Archibald Norval

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid contract of sale requires the seller to be the owner of the thing sold.
  2. 2 Whether the seller is obliged to transfer ownership or only to deliver undisturbed possession and warrant against eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is liable for payment of the purchase price for the game despite the respondent not being the owner.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that South African law does not require the seller in a contract of sale to be the owner of the thing sold. The seller's obligation is to deliver undisturbed possession and to warrant against eviction, not to transfer ownership. In this case, the respondent delivered possession of the game to the appellant, and there was no evidence of eviction or a claim by a person with better title. The appellant's defence based on alleged tacit or implied terms requiring transfer of ownership was rejected, as such terms are not implied by law and cannot be imported in contradiction of the express terms of the contract. The contract was complete and efficacious, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.